Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 2968 MP
Judgement Date : 17 February, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 17 th OF FEBRUARY, 2023
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 7159 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
GAJENDRA @ GAJJU S/O SAJJAN SINGH PANWAR,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOUR
R/O 20, SURAJ NAGAR BEHIND MAYUR HOSPITAL,
KHAJRANA INDORE
AT PRESENT 315, SEC B NYAY NAGAR KHAJRANA
INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI AVINASH YADAV - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
THROUGH POLICE STATION - CRIME BRANCH, DISTT.
INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....NON APPLICANT
(BY SHRI VISHAL PANWAR - PANEL LAWYER)
This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
Applicant has filed this repeated second application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of bail. His earlier bail application was rejected on merit vide order dated 18.7.2022 passed by this Court in MCRC No.17415/2022.
Learned counsel for the applicant contended that after rejecting the earlier Signature Notapplication Verified prosecution has examined Karan Deshmukh (PW-1), Sangeeta Dave Signed by: TRILOK SINGH SAVNER (PW-2), Ravi Panwar (PW-3), Renu (PW-4), Sadhna (PW-5), Aneeta (PW-6), Signing time: 17-Feb-23 8:26:26 PM
Anand Singh Bhati (PW-7) and Kamlesh (PW-8) and most of the prosecution witnesses have turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution, therefore, on the basis of the above changed circumstances applicant be enlarged on bail.
Per-contra, learned PL for respondent/State opposes the bail application and prays for its rejection by submitting that applicant's earlier bail application was rejected on merit, therefore, he does not deserve for bail.
Perused the case diary as well as the impugned order of the court below. Considered all the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments advanced by counsel for the parties, nature and gravity of allegation as also the
fact that this is the case under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC, the case is based on the documentary evidence, although prosecution has examined few witnesses but rest of the prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined and marshalling of the statement of witnesses is not permissible as per the judgment in the case of Satish Jaggi Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors. (Cr.A. No.651/2007) decided on 30.7.2007, wherein the Apex Court has held as under:-
“At the stage of granting of bail, the Court can only go into the question of prima facie case established for granting bail. It cannot go into the question of credibility and reliability of the witnesses put up by the prosecution. The question of credibility and reliability of prosecution witnesses can only be tested during the trial.â€
Bail application of co-accused Deepak has also been dismissed vide order dated 10.12.2021 passed in MCRC No.58603/2021. This Court has Signature Not Verified rejected applicant's earlier bail application after considering all the facts and Signed by: TRILOK SINGH SAVNER circumstances of the case and there is no material changes in the circumstances Signing time: 17-Feb-23 8:26:26 PM
in which the applicant may be enlarged on bail.
Therefore, this repeated 2nd bail application is also rejected. C.C. as per rules.
(ANIL VERMA) JUDGE trilok
Signature Not Verified Signed by: TRILOK SINGH SAVNER Signing time: 17-Feb-23 8:26:26 PM
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!